InformAction Forums

OK, I just read the "SOME SITES YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO ALLOW" sticky, but I still have a broader question regarding this....

I have accumulated a HUGE list of sites I have marked as untrusted just from my own browsing (not using any type of special list). My question is - NoScript was already blocking these sites before I marked them as untrusted through the NS UI. I would dare say that 99% of them are behavioral advertising/tracking sites. Now, that being the said (NS was already blocking them anyway), do I really need to mark them as untrusted? In other words, NS is already doing it's job - why would I need to mark something as untrusted if it is already being blocked? What would be the advantage to this?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

8-bit

8-bit wrote:In other words, NS is already doing it's job - why would I need to mark something as untrusted if it is already being blocked? What would be the advantage to this?

The advantage (and the main reason why the untrusted blacklist feature had been originally implemented) is reducing clutter in the main NoScript menu, by moving the "Allow..." commands related to sites you very likely do not want to allow inside the "Untrusted" submenu.

Thanks much to Giorgio for his explanation, as said in the introduction to that list:

If you see one in the NoScript menu that matches, you can click "Mark as Untrusted", if you like. Then, that script source will never again show in the main NS menu. This can shorten the menu greatly!

(emphasis added here). I would add only that you're quite correct that simply doing *nothing* leaves these sites default-denied. As the title says, these are sites where you might not want to click the "Allow" or ("Temporarily Allow") commands.

Many users have asked how to know which sites to allow. The list gives a number that usually aren't necessary. ... or in some cases, you don't want to. (again, not casting aspersions on any one site.)

If you have additional sites to suggest, please feel free to do so, either by posting or by PM, and whether you do or don't want to be credited.

However, please note that we are being careful not to cast our own judgment on individual sites, but rather, are quoting publicly-available primary sources -- in this case, taken directly from Yahoo's Privacy Policy pages, as being their ad servers, trackers, etc.

My HOSTS file, provided by a third party, has more than 16,000 entries in it, reported by users and (presumably) verified by the provide. This is not our intent.
If you have primary sources -- companies publicly identified by themselves or by their partners (e. g., AOL, Gmail, etc.) as being only for the purpose of ads, tracking, etc., then we can add them to the list without worrying about receiving nasty letters, etc. (The latter was discussed by the support team before the thread was posted. It was agreed that this is best for the site, making the thread a neutral reporter of facts rather than making judgment calls.)

Thank you for your interest.

Giorgio Maone wrote:The advantage (and the main reason why the untrusted blacklist feature had been originally implemented) is reducing clutter in the main NoScript menu, by moving the "Allow..." commands related to sites you very likely do not want to allow inside the "Untrusted" submenu.

Understood, and yes that does help reduce clutter/repetition as many of the sites I have marked as untrusted are used quite broadly and/or on sites I visit frequently.

Tom T. wrote:However, please note that we are being careful not to cast our own judgment on individual sites, but rather, are quoting publicly-available primary sources -- in this case, taken directly from Yahoo's Privacy Policy pages, as being their ad servers, trackers, etc.

Yes, I can see why making an arbitrary list is not your intent, as the ambiguity of broad-brushing a site, may indeed lead to headaches.

Many thanks to both of you for taking the time to answer my question, it clarifies things perfectly.

8-bit

8-bit wrote:Many thanks to both of you for taking the time to answer my question, it clarifies things perfectly.

You're very welcome. I'll mark this topic as Resolved.

And since your post helped us to clarify the intent of that sticky, I'd like to put a link to this thread in that sticky, as surely other users have the same questions. If you object, just post here or PM me, and I'll remove it. But thanks for the opportunity to explain further.